nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:John Smith
At the infobox at 'spouses', it says: two. So Gay John was married twice, he pulled an Oscar Wilde? ;-) BastardRoyale 08:14, June 22, 2010 (UTC) Hu-uh?? 'Smith discovered a sexual preference for men in the Army, and therefore left the Army and married a woman.' Am I alone in thinking that makes no sense whatsoever? Semyon Edikovich 10:24, June 30, 2010 (UTC) :Probably to surpress his gay feelings? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:24, October 26, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree with Oos. We should really expand this and add more detail to stop confusion, considering we're touching up history and I'm adding the named buildings in, maybe we should touch up the founding fathers/mothers add more detail. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 15:27, October 26, 2012 (UTC) :::Wouldn't it be much easier if we would say he was bisexual? It wouldn't change his biography at all. And it's easier then elaborate theories of cover-up stories or a lavender marriage. ;) The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 16:54, October 26, 2012 (UTC) We should just get rid of this. We should also change the name... we have two founding Smiths and Smith is a terribly cliché name. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:49, October 27, 2012 (UTC) : Personally I don't agree with retroactive changing especially on things that have been here from the beginning. We should simply expand upon this, plus Smith is simply a common last name. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 02:17, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ::We've changed enough already :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:10, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :::I don't see the problem. After all, we started in 2007. We made up this 1877 history. As I said, Smith is too cliché. I can tolerate one founding Smith, but not two. Also, homosexuality was almost always kept secret in the 1870s. It just makes no sense to have him be one. Though, I have no problem with noting that historians today believe he may have been homosexual, but it shouldn't be nearly so central to his page as it is currently. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:47, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :::Also, to appease Pierlot, it was Marcus who made this page, not Dimi. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:48, October 27, 2012 (UTC) I really don't like that you put the fact that he was a homosexual in the uppermost section of the article, where you are suppost to generalize the person's accomplishments and the most important facts about that person. It seems like the whole reason you created this page was because you felt the need to create a homosexual character. Its like we put "by the end of his life, he was heterosexual" at the top of every non-homosexual character article on this wiki. Don't you think that it would just be much more suitable to put something like "he advocated gay rights" in the opening paragraph, and then go more in depth saying that he was "openly homosexual" somewhere in the description? — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 13:42, October 27, 2012 (UTC) Understand for the time of the 1800's and early 1900's being homosexual was very, how should i say in even an atheist coutnry like lovia, unmoral. So being the first openly gay person and a founding father is very grand and should be stated in the opening paragraph. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:50, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :I see what you mean, but I still think that you should at-least add that he stood up for gay rights to make it sound like more of an accomplishment. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 13:54, October 27, 2012 (UTC) :It's just too unrealistic. Gay rights is a late 20th and 21st century thing, Marcus. This just doesn't work. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:10, October 27, 2012 (UTC)